So far, the article has lost me at "value is objective". The value of a 5 litre bottle of water will vary hugely according to whether the prospective buyer is hiking through Death Valley, versus walking through a city business district with shops and drinking fountains everywhere.

There are a number of issues in contention. Just as Hillary would be Obama's 3rd term, so was Peikoff's "term" a continuation and a reiteration of Ayn Rand. The URL used above lays out some of the Basic Principles of Objectivisim exactly as promulgated by Rand, and used as a club to dispel Kelly's objections. There are many rough edges that need to be smoothed out, particularly for those just getting into the philosophy in order to understand what spawned the fiction. It has been my experience that in many cases those who are knowledgeable in the work of Rand express a disconcerting arrogance rather than a welcoming atmosphere of teaching.While the ongoing discussions in the Gulch are really meaningful and elucidating, they are often expressed with a certain 'Ayn Rand for Dummies' attitude.
All this has caused to remind me of questions that I've had. I'll put them forth in the future as "Ask The Gulch" format. Meanwhile, the Gulch is serving up some heady brew in its posts.

The issue actually comes down to purpose and its identification. "Good" and "evil" are value judgments of whether or not an action and its result move one closer to purpose. The underlying challenge, of course is identifying purpose. Can we be tolerant of people in their quest to pursue knowledge? I would argue that since we are all in the same boat, such mutual action is in our own best interest as it allows us to compare others' ideas to our own for evaluation and further action. I do not argue that we can or should tolerate fallacy, however.

It is my opinion that one of the big issues that stands in the way of widespread acceptance of Objectivism is that it has been presented in high and mighty philosophical terms that just do not resonate with most people. That is because most people live in the present with daily life issues of making money, raising families, paying bills, etc.

If Objectivism hopes to be widespread, I think it needs to be brought down to the level where people live. AS, except for Galts speech, was pretty much that way. Galts speech was WAY too high and mighty to be waded through by most people (at least that was my thought on it). AS1 movie was pretty good, but it got less intelligible in AS2 and finally quite boring in AS3.

Dyed in the wool Objectivists would be good at writing a new consititution and things like that. But whats needed is to show people on the street HOW statism isnt good for them in practical terms; how it results in Venezuelan disasters; and specifically how we can change our existing culture away from it and improve things.

Use of the word schism or attribution of evil to legitimate arguments is why Objectivism has not garnered a larger audience.

Unlike Christianity and particularly the Catholic Church, Objectivism encourages an individual to develop his/her philosophy from first principles based on objective (intentionally lower case) reality. Given that, there will undoubtedly be some, hopefully small, variance in what one has experienced as reality. This is precisely one of the points that I expected would come up in my post from last week. I think only one person (jlc?) had brought it up.

I think there is a significant difference between a bad/evil idea developed, formulated, and expressed from a mistake of error and that from bad/evil thought and thought process and I think the differences are more readily apparent than many are willing to admit. I don't feel as reticent as some in responding to a 'bad' or 'evil' idea, nor do I believe that the presenter of such should receive a courtesy of my listening further to his explanation or responding to the same in a polite or Socratic manner. I think 'Nonsense' is often an appropriate response. I think 'tolerance' like 'humility' is over-rated.

Peikoff is too arrogant for me and his fights to 'close' Objectivism were wrong headed and I think had more to do with his presumed 'position' within the intellectual side of Objectivism. Kelly, on the other hand may have been too willing to modify or soften the language and egoism of Objectivism in his outreach to Libertarians. But I do agree with Kelly to the 'openness' of Objectivity and it's applications to fields not addressed or fully explored by AR.

I will argue Objectivism here at GCO for the purpose of communication to the new, but in person arguments to most, IMHO, run up against 'closed' minds (believers), muddled thinkers, or the bad/evil thinkers--though I do still run onto an occasional honest error. But nearly always that idea from 'honest error' is presented from a questioning or not certain attitude.

Off the top of my head, that's the best I can do right now. I honestly hadn't thought that much about it before. Maybe it has more to do with personality that with the right/wrong position.

First, this article is from 1989. This schism still exists and won't resolve easily, if at all. In the article he even stated this is an open issue from the 60s. Five decades later it is still in dispute.

I disagree with his premise that a philosophy is created whole and entire by its writer, in this case Ayn Rand. Prior philosophy underpinned and influenced her before, during, and after the creation of Objectivism. Some positively, some negatively. Your knowledge and judgment changes with time and use.

Do you think She could have created Objectivism without these influences and examples? I do not.

The tone of this article toward the end is reminiscent of either "because I say so" from a frustrated parent, or "because I say so" from some other authority figure uninterested in debate or discussion. I never bought that argument since it has a dearth of fact or evidence supporting it. That has not changed.

If you are endeavoring to teach, being unwilling to deal with questions is a handicap.

Basically, since I want debate and discussion I am excluded. How do you check premises without those tools?

could you please clarify your position?

I wrote what I viewed as a brief comment on this discussion, but apparently I exceeded a 5,000-character limit. And so, I posted my comment, just above, as a new contribution.

If I embraced any specific philosophy it would probably be "Treebeardism". I cannot agree with everything that any philosopher, including Ayn Rand states. Assuming that since I find some of his ideas interesting I must therefore advocate all of them is a basic logic error. Some P is Q does not imply all P is Q.

While I agree with you that environmentalism is the source of much evil, there is still some objective validity to the idea that it is not life promoting to pee in the place you get your drinking water. Perhaps the biggest risk is simplistic thinking about complex issues.

I advocate tolerance in the same manner as Scalia described: "some very good people have some very bad ideas". I do not ascribe to the "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" philosophy. Bad ideas are bad. I do tolerate people who have bad ideas and will discuss things with them. The debate seemed to be that even talking to the libertarians gave them support.

I am concerned about the implied logic that follows the train: he is wrong, I can see that, he should be able to see it too, therefore he is deliberately being dishonest. It happens, but it's best not to attribute villainy when simple error suffices.

So, you're advocating 'tolerance' and/or 'openness'. I then appreciate your opening comment that you "do not consider myself an objectivist". Although I don't express my thoughts as fluently or as clearly as Pelkoff, I fully agree with his explanation and position. I find that I can be tolerant of honest misunderstandings, I won't be tolerant of ideas that are obviously false and do consider them to be evil representations of evil thought and inevitably lead to evil actions or the acceptance of the kind of statement, 'I don't agree with the action, but I can understand why he might think that'. I just see that to be dishonest thinking.

WS you are definitely not an O - You are a libertarian in the mold of Hayek.

Evil idea are Evil, for example environmentalism. The people who push these ideas are evil if they have been given the information showing that they are evil and still push these ideas.

I am not a fan of the Benevolence is a virtue argument from Kelley, but I really am not a fan of the seven virtues Rand lists. When Obejctivist ethics is taught that way it sounds like your local preacher or Ben Franklin or some business consultant. I generally agree with Kelley's ideas about benevolence when arguing from first principles, however I do not think it is all that important.

The open vs. closed Objectivism argument is important and there I whole heartedly agree with Kelley. The closed objectivism is (has been) a disaster. It turns Objectivism into a history project. All important areas of study (Geometry, Newtonian mechanics) are open to advances by other people.

Kelley is definitely an Objectivist and Peikoff's response to Kelley is out of proportion to any supposed offense.

no, I did not think you were. I was just clarifying for others on the board. We have lots of newbies who will be drawn to the discussion because it is interesting and sort of Peyton Place-y. unfortunate, really. I hope some Gulchers who are more knowledgeable and have better historical context than me will weigh in. The only thing I can add is that any logical system must by definition be "open" else it doesn't work.

I'm sorry if I implied that he was. His essay was defending his speeches to libertarian groups in the hopes of educating them with respect to objectivism. I do think that it is risky to ascribe intent to error and unnecessarily inhibits communication.

David Kelley is not a libertarian. To your question: I think the distinguishing factor is intellectual dishonesty or deception. You know what you are promoting to be false or you try to obscure truth to fit a personal agenda. I do not think that Kelley is guilty of either.

While I have been around objectivists for the last thirty years I do not consider myself an objectivist in the sense of a formal philosophy. I do have a conviction that there is an objective reality capable of analysis and understanding so many of the ideas resonate with me as obviously true. I am enjoying my time on this site expanding my knowledge of objectivism and to that end read this and also hunted down David Kelley's essay that inspired it. Since I do consider myself a 'flavor' of libertarianism, the battle between objectivists and libertarians is of particular interest to me.

The essential argument seems to be whether incorrect ideas are 'evil' in and of themselves. While the analysis that an incorrect idea is 'evil', even if actions are not taken based on it seems convincing, there is an association of the idea with the thinker of the idea that has unfortunate connotations. While we can argue with evil ideas, evil people are beyond the pale. With the death of Antonin Scalia recently, a quote has been circulating: “I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you gotta get another day job.”

So, is the creator of an incorrect idea actually an evil person unworthy of civilized discourse? For by common usage of the word evil we imply intent as well as correctness. We are all capable of error. The existence of a perceivable objective world with objective truths does not automatically give us possession of those truths. We may incorrectly perceive information, fail to perceive all relevant information or make errors in our evaluation of the data. Any subject sufficiently complex to be worth discussing is also sufficiently complex that many opportunities for disagreement occur. To some, the knowledge that there IS an objective truth implies that they are in possession of it and leads to intolerance of those who disagree since they MUST be incorrect -- for there is only one truth. In many complex arguments the reality may well be the reverse of the Rabbi's statement "You're both right" -- they are probably both wrong in some aspect.

In this political year, I’ve often quoted Tolkien, and will do so once again. Treebeard, when asked who’s side he was on responds: “Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, little orc.” We are all in Treebeard’s position for no other human being agrees with us in absolutely all matters – and if they did what would we find to say to them? We share a common reality with everyone in the world, although we do not share a similar understanding of it. The question is whether it is better to remain alone in the forest with your truth or join the battle for middle earth.